By GORDON DICKSON - Star-Telegram Staff Writer - Jan. 18, 2008
At every train station in Tarrant County, electronic message boards hang from the platform ceilings. The signs are supposed to project helpful messages to Trinity Railway Express riders, such as "The next eastbound TRE will depart in 11 minutes."
But the signs have been dark for most of the past year because of mechanical problems, Fort Worth Transportation Authority finance officer Rob Harmon said.
On Thursday, the T board agreed to spend $51,215 to repair the signs over several months. The work will be performed by Inova Solutions, the only company to submit a bid.
Even without the signs, passengers can still check times the old-fashioned way: by consulting print schedules posted at each station.
The signs look fancy but don't actually track the precise location of trains, Harmon said.
That may change in the next year or two. Dallas Area Rapid Transit intends to install a more sophisticated passenger information system, which would use sensors to precisely monitor trains in Dallas County, Harmon said. Once that system is up and running, the T likely will tap into it on the Tarrant County side, he said.
Also at the meeting
In other action Thursday, the T board:
Hired Freese and Nichols to design the location of a second track at Richland Hills Station. An extra track stretching a half-mile in each direction from the station would allow faster, more frequent train service. The design will cost at least $129,000.
Discussed a potential First Amendment lawsuit in closed session but took no action. Last month, a passenger complained she was escorted off a bus for reading the Bible to her children. T officials said it was the volume of her voice, not the subject matter, that caused the problem.
Friday, January 18, 2008
ACTION ALERT: Tx House Committee on Transportation Public Hearing on role of MPO and Rural Planning Authorities within COGs
Texas House of Represenatives Meeting Notice - Jan. 18, 2008
TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMITTEE: Transportation
SUBCOMMITTEE: Planning Authorities
TIME & DATE: 10:00 AM, Wednesday, February 06, 2008
PLACE: E2.012
CHAIR: Rep. Fred Hill
The Subcommittee will meet to consider the following:
Charge #5: Examine the role of metropolitan planning authorities in state law, as well as the creation of rural planning authorities to address the planning needs outside of metropolitan planning organizations but within council of government boundaries.
TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMITTEE: Transportation
SUBCOMMITTEE: Planning Authorities
TIME & DATE: 10:00 AM, Wednesday, February 06, 2008
PLACE: E2.012
CHAIR: Rep. Fred Hill
The Subcommittee will meet to consider the following:
Charge #5: Examine the role of metropolitan planning authorities in state law, as well as the creation of rural planning authorities to address the planning needs outside of metropolitan planning organizations but within council of government boundaries.
Hearing on Wendy Davis' Candidacy for Sen. Distict 10 Scheduled Monday, Jan. 23
By Tarrant County Democratic Party - Jan. 18, 2008
Hearing on Wendy Davis' Candidacy for Sen. Dist. 10
Scheduled for Monday, January 23rd, 11am
The Firefighters' appeal to Chairman Art Brender's decision to declare Wendy Davis eligible as a candidate in the Senate District 10 Primary will be heard by the Court of Appeals on Monday, January 23rd, at 11am.
The Hearing will take place on the 9th Floor of the Tarrant County Justice Center.
Hearing on Wendy Davis' Candidacy for Sen. Dist. 10
Scheduled for Monday, January 23rd, 11am
The Firefighters' appeal to Chairman Art Brender's decision to declare Wendy Davis eligible as a candidate in the Senate District 10 Primary will be heard by the Court of Appeals on Monday, January 23rd, at 11am.
The Hearing will take place on the 9th Floor of the Tarrant County Justice Center.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Study to kick-start highway bill lobbying
By Jim Snyder - The Hill - January 15, 2008
Business groups are looking at Tuesday’s release of a transportation study as a start-your-engines moment to what is likely to be one of the most aggressively lobbied highway bills in recent memory.
A panel of public and private officials who reviewed the country’s transportation needs for the past two years wrote the long-awaited report. Congress formed the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission in the last highway bill.
The report will examine all four components of the transportation infrastructure system: freight rail lines, highways and bridges, ports, and mass transit systems.
The current highway bill lasts until 2009, but lobbyists anticipate the debate over surface transportation will begin this year given the rising importance of transportation bottlenecks on operating costs. An anticipated $4 billion shortfall in transportation accounts in 2008 is also likely to drive the transportation debate on Capitol Hill.
One key element of the debate is whether the gas tax should be significantly increased to help pay for new spending.
Under the plan endorsed by a majority of panel members, the federal share of transportation spending would increase from 37 percent to 40 percent, according to one lobbyist.
There is a broad coalition of forces arrayed in support of tax increases, but increasing the gas tax is likely to remain politically difficult.
“A special commission came up with an old, cold, bad idea,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee. “This is a disappointment and probably even a big waste of tax dollars,” Grassley said in a statement anticipating the panel’s report.
Transportation lobbyists said the committee itself was split on the need to raise taxes. The Bush administration opposes a tax hike, and current Transportation Secretary Mary Peters reportedly is one of the panel members to have argued against raising taxes as a way to spend more on infrastructure.
However, groups like NAM and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, normally allergic to tax hikes, in this case have joined contractors, civil engineers and others in support of higher user fees.
“This is a priority for [our members] as the costs for logistics are increasing much faster than they have before,” Palmieri said.
The issue of infrastructure spending “has never been more important to them. It is very high on the agenda,” he said.
He noted one estimate that congestion adds $8 billion a year in prices for consumer goods.
Kavinoky, who is also the executive director of Americans for Transportation Mobility, one of several infrastructure coalitions formed in anticipation of the next highway bill debate, defended the tax.
Even though the bulk of the new money would come from an increased gas tax, long the mainstay in transportation funding, business lobbyists also anticipate the report will recommend the sort of paradigm shift they were looking for.
One lobbyist, for example, expected the report to call for the creation of a permanent commission that would develop a transportation bill through a process that mirrors the Base Closure and Realignment Commission method Congress adopted to handle the politically sensitive work of closing military bases.
Under that scenario, Congress would approve or reject the commission’s transportation report. But lawmakers would not be able to amend the legislation.
The report is also expected to advocate for a performance-based matrix that would tie funding to improvements in safety, congestion and maintenance efforts.
“That is the equivalent of a massive earthquake in transportation policy,” Kavinoky said.
Kavinoky said federal dollars are distributed by program with little regard to how the money will improve performance.
A variety of other funding mechanisms are expected to be proposed by panel members to improve system performance.
Those are likely to include public-private partnerships for toll roads that are controversial in some quarters, and a transit tax to support expansion of public transportation programs.
Read more in THE HILL
Business groups are looking at Tuesday’s release of a transportation study as a start-your-engines moment to what is likely to be one of the most aggressively lobbied highway bills in recent memory.
A panel of public and private officials who reviewed the country’s transportation needs for the past two years wrote the long-awaited report. Congress formed the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission in the last highway bill.
“Every stakeholder in the transportation industry … has been waiting for this report to come out,” said Janet Kavinoky, director of transportation infrastructure at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
“Nothing like this has been done before,” said Rosario Palmieri, vice president for infrastructure policy at the National Association of Manufacturers.
The report will examine all four components of the transportation infrastructure system: freight rail lines, highways and bridges, ports, and mass transit systems.
The current highway bill lasts until 2009, but lobbyists anticipate the debate over surface transportation will begin this year given the rising importance of transportation bottlenecks on operating costs. An anticipated $4 billion shortfall in transportation accounts in 2008 is also likely to drive the transportation debate on Capitol Hill.
One key element of the debate is whether the gas tax should be significantly increased to help pay for new spending.
Under the plan endorsed by a majority of panel members, the federal share of transportation spending would increase from 37 percent to 40 percent, according to one lobbyist.
There is a broad coalition of forces arrayed in support of tax increases, but increasing the gas tax is likely to remain politically difficult.
“A special commission came up with an old, cold, bad idea,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee. “This is a disappointment and probably even a big waste of tax dollars,” Grassley said in a statement anticipating the panel’s report.
Transportation lobbyists said the committee itself was split on the need to raise taxes. The Bush administration opposes a tax hike, and current Transportation Secretary Mary Peters reportedly is one of the panel members to have argued against raising taxes as a way to spend more on infrastructure.
However, groups like NAM and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, normally allergic to tax hikes, in this case have joined contractors, civil engineers and others in support of higher user fees.
“This is a priority for [our members] as the costs for logistics are increasing much faster than they have before,” Palmieri said.
The issue of infrastructure spending “has never been more important to them. It is very high on the agenda,” he said.
He noted one estimate that congestion adds $8 billion a year in prices for consumer goods.
Kavinoky, who is also the executive director of Americans for Transportation Mobility, one of several infrastructure coalitions formed in anticipation of the next highway bill debate, defended the tax.
“Right now, a user fee is the simplest and most straight-forward way to collect revenues,” she said.
Even though the bulk of the new money would come from an increased gas tax, long the mainstay in transportation funding, business lobbyists also anticipate the report will recommend the sort of paradigm shift they were looking for.
One lobbyist, for example, expected the report to call for the creation of a permanent commission that would develop a transportation bill through a process that mirrors the Base Closure and Realignment Commission method Congress adopted to handle the politically sensitive work of closing military bases.
Under that scenario, Congress would approve or reject the commission’s transportation report. But lawmakers would not be able to amend the legislation.
The report is also expected to advocate for a performance-based matrix that would tie funding to improvements in safety, congestion and maintenance efforts.
“That is the equivalent of a massive earthquake in transportation policy,” Kavinoky said.
Kavinoky said federal dollars are distributed by program with little regard to how the money will improve performance.
A variety of other funding mechanisms are expected to be proposed by panel members to improve system performance.
Those are likely to include public-private partnerships for toll roads that are controversial in some quarters, and a transit tax to support expansion of public transportation programs.
Read more in THE HILL
ACTION ALERT: NTTA Public Meeting Scheduled for Dallas North Tollway Extension, Phase 4A
By Sherita Coffelt - NTTA - Jan. 15, 2008
(Prosper, TX) - The North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) will conduct an open house public meeting to discuss the design for the extension of the Dallas North Tollway from U.S. 380 north to Farm-to-Market (FM) 428 in Collin County, referred to as the Dallas North Tollway Extension, Phase 4A. The public meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Thursday, Jan. 24, 2008, at Prestonwood Baptist Church, north campus, 1180 Prosper Trail in Prosper, Texas. All interested citizens are invited to attend this public meeting.
“At this meeting, we will provide information regarding the development of the proposed alternatives to interested citizens and stakeholders and to provide a forum for which the public may provide input and comments,” said Jeff Dailey, the NTTA’s Assistant Executive Director of Project Delivery. “This project will further open a corridor to the northern side of the metroplex. Not only will the project provide direct access beyond U.S. 380, it will serve as an additional step in creating a system link north.”
Maps, drawings and other information about the project will be on display, showing the corridor alignment and preliminary design information. The study team will be available at each display to assist in orientation and interpretation of the drawings and other materials and to discuss environmental effects of the proposed design.
Attendees will have the opportunity to provide the study team with comments and suggestions by providing verbal comments to be documented by a court reporter or submitting written comments. Such comments will assist project personnel with the design decisions associated with this study.
Any interested citizen may present verbal or written comments either at the public meeting or after the meeting to the NTTA by Feb. 7, 2008, in care of Ms. Leigh Hornsby, HNTB Corporation, 5910 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 200, Plano, TX 75093. Comments may also be sent electronically to mlhornsby@hntb.com.
(Prosper, TX) - The North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) will conduct an open house public meeting to discuss the design for the extension of the Dallas North Tollway from U.S. 380 north to Farm-to-Market (FM) 428 in Collin County, referred to as the Dallas North Tollway Extension, Phase 4A. The public meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Thursday, Jan. 24, 2008, at Prestonwood Baptist Church, north campus, 1180 Prosper Trail in Prosper, Texas. All interested citizens are invited to attend this public meeting.
“At this meeting, we will provide information regarding the development of the proposed alternatives to interested citizens and stakeholders and to provide a forum for which the public may provide input and comments,” said Jeff Dailey, the NTTA’s Assistant Executive Director of Project Delivery. “This project will further open a corridor to the northern side of the metroplex. Not only will the project provide direct access beyond U.S. 380, it will serve as an additional step in creating a system link north.”
Maps, drawings and other information about the project will be on display, showing the corridor alignment and preliminary design information. The study team will be available at each display to assist in orientation and interpretation of the drawings and other materials and to discuss environmental effects of the proposed design.
Attendees will have the opportunity to provide the study team with comments and suggestions by providing verbal comments to be documented by a court reporter or submitting written comments. Such comments will assist project personnel with the design decisions associated with this study.
Any interested citizen may present verbal or written comments either at the public meeting or after the meeting to the NTTA by Feb. 7, 2008, in care of Ms. Leigh Hornsby, HNTB Corporation, 5910 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 200, Plano, TX 75093. Comments may also be sent electronically to mlhornsby@hntb.com.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Bonehead educators fuel election chaos
By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - Jan. 14, 2008
The Texas Education Agency receives my "Bonehead of the Year Award" for scheduling TAKS testing on primary election day without sending clarification to school districts that state law requires that public buildings (including schools) must accommodate elections on election day.
Across Texas County Election officials and County Chairs of both political parties are scrambling to sign election contracts while many school districts are refusing to accommodate the elections. Some counties are suing school districts to get access to the buildings. Some school districts are accommodating the elections. Others are standing firm refusing to accommodate the elections. Citizens are confused. Most news coverage is sketchy and incomplete or inaccurate.
Here is what I've learned about how educators who are charged with teaching our school children civics and government blew this one out of the water!
Some school districts wanted to delay the start of the school year for the Spring Semester. The State Board of Education is responsible for administering a "student assessment instrument and is charged in Texas Education Code Chapter 39.027 (a)(2) with adopting a schedule for administrating the end-of-course assessment.
State law was change so that the Texas public schools' spring semester could start later than last year. A change was made in the Texas Education Code 39.023(c-3) so that this year the first end-of-course assessment tests must be administered at least 2 weeks later than that they were last year.
The language in the Education Code was changed to read:
Texas Education Code 39.023.c-3 does not require that the TEA set the TAKS test on March 4th (election day). It merely requires that the date must be at least 2 weeks later than last year. I have phoned TEA Legal inquiring if they reviewed Texas Election Code 43.031 requiring that public buildings accommodate elections and sent information to the school districts clarifying that TAKS testing cannot hinder the accommodation of elections on election day when they scheduled TAKS testing March 4, 2008? I have not received a response yet from them.
Texas law does not require TAKS testing on March 4th (election day). TEA chose to schedule it on March 4th (one of many dates after the time stipulated by state law that the first end-of-course assessment test must be scheduled.
I think this is a very boneheaded decision by State Bureaucrats. Those who scheduled TAKS testing on election day and those who approved that schedule have thrown the election process into unnecessary chaos. Election administrators, parties, candidates are struggling to determine where the elections will be held. Some counties are suing the school districts to require them to accommodate the elections according to Texas Election Code 43.031. Others moved the elections to other sites, often at an inconvenience to the voters. (When election sites change, a percentage of voters fail to learn the new sites in time to vote - depressing electoral turnout.) Some communities simply do not have suitable alternate sites available in the precincts to hold the elections.
I sent this message to the Texas Education Agency:
If you want to write them the email link to their website form is: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/tea/contact.html
I recommend that you also phone them. It is easier to ignore contact forms. When their switchboard also lights up the e-mail responses have greater impact.
The Texas Education Agency is located in the William Travis Building
1701 N. Congress Avenue
Austin, Texas, 78701
Those who oversee (and vote to fund) the TEA include:
Gov. Rick Perry - Tara Balleau (512) 799-9240 is the governor's point person on education.
In the Lt. Governor's office Andre Sheridan (512) 463-0108 is the Education Point Person.
Members of the Texas Senate Committee on Education include:
Chair of the Senate Education Committee: Senator Florence Shapiro (512) 463-0108 (972) 403-3404 - email form
Senator Royce West - (512) 463-0123 or (214) 467-0123
Senator West's education point person is Lajuana Barton lajuana_d.barton@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Kyle Janek - (512) 463-0117 (800) 445-2635
Senator Janek's point person on education is Casey Haney email: casey.haney@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Judith Zaffirini (512) 463-0121 (956) 722-2293
Her education point person is Warren von Eschenbach email: warren.voneschenbach@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Steve Ogden (512) 463-0105 His education point person is Patty Guerra
email: patty.guerra@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Leticia Van de Putte (512) 463-0126 (210) 733-6604
Her point person on education is Ida Garcia email: ida.garcis@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Tommy Williams (281) 364-9426 His point person on education is his chief of staff Janet Stieben email: janet.stieben@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Dan Patrick (713) 464-0282
I suspect that there may be attempts at TEA (if there is enough outcry)to blame some low level staffer. However, this date was set months ago. It went all the way up the supply chain and officials all the way up signed off on it. The responsiblity for ensuring that directives from the TEA complies with State Law (including State Election Code) rests with the top. The legal team should have reviewed this, conferred with the Attorney General and SOS and issued a directive to all school districts clarifying that if TAKS testing occurs on an election day, the school districts still have to accommodate the elections. The buck rests at the top. They are responsible for triggering law suits between county election officials and school districts throughout Texas, impacting every voter in Texas and sending a very bad message to our school children that elections really aren't that high a priority with this state's "Educators."
I think it is time to EDUCATE the educators.
REFERENCE: Texas Election Code 43.031
Education Code 39.023(c-3)
The Texas Education Agency receives my "Bonehead of the Year Award" for scheduling TAKS testing on primary election day without sending clarification to school districts that state law requires that public buildings (including schools) must accommodate elections on election day.
Across Texas County Election officials and County Chairs of both political parties are scrambling to sign election contracts while many school districts are refusing to accommodate the elections. Some counties are suing school districts to get access to the buildings. Some school districts are accommodating the elections. Others are standing firm refusing to accommodate the elections. Citizens are confused. Most news coverage is sketchy and incomplete or inaccurate.
Here is what I've learned about how educators who are charged with teaching our school children civics and government blew this one out of the water!
Some school districts wanted to delay the start of the school year for the Spring Semester. The State Board of Education is responsible for administering a "student assessment instrument and is charged in Texas Education Code Chapter 39.027 (a)(2) with adopting a schedule for administrating the end-of-course assessment.
State law was change so that the Texas public schools' spring semester could start later than last year. A change was made in the Texas Education Code 39.023(c-3) so that this year the first end-of-course assessment tests must be administered at least 2 weeks later than that they were last year.
The language in the Education Code was changed to read:
(c-3)In adopting a schedule for the administration of assessment instruments under this section, the State Board of Education shall require:
(1)assessment instruments administered under Subsection (a) to be administered on a schedule so that the first assessment instrument is administered at least two weeks later than the date on which the first assessment instrument was administered
under Subsection (a) during the 2006-2007 school year;
Texas Education Code 39.023.c-3 does not require that the TEA set the TAKS test on March 4th (election day). It merely requires that the date must be at least 2 weeks later than last year. I have phoned TEA Legal inquiring if they reviewed Texas Election Code 43.031 requiring that public buildings accommodate elections and sent information to the school districts clarifying that TAKS testing cannot hinder the accommodation of elections on election day when they scheduled TAKS testing March 4, 2008? I have not received a response yet from them.
Texas law does not require TAKS testing on March 4th (election day). TEA chose to schedule it on March 4th (one of many dates after the time stipulated by state law that the first end-of-course assessment test must be scheduled.
I think this is a very boneheaded decision by State Bureaucrats. Those who scheduled TAKS testing on election day and those who approved that schedule have thrown the election process into unnecessary chaos. Election administrators, parties, candidates are struggling to determine where the elections will be held. Some counties are suing the school districts to require them to accommodate the elections according to Texas Election Code 43.031. Others moved the elections to other sites, often at an inconvenience to the voters. (When election sites change, a percentage of voters fail to learn the new sites in time to vote - depressing electoral turnout.) Some communities simply do not have suitable alternate sites available in the precincts to hold the elections.
I sent this message to the Texas Education Agency:
You have flunked the test in citizenship and applied civics! Entrusted by the citizens of this state to teach our children about CIVICS, GOVERNMENT, PARTICIPATION in the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, you either failed to check or chose to ignore that March 4, 2008 is a primary election day. State law requires that public buildings be made available for elections yet you chose to schedule (or approve scheduling) TAKS testing on election day. Your irresponsible, short-sighted, ignorant actions diminishes the ability of election officials and candidates to clearly communicate where the polling places will be in time for ALL CITIZENS to participate. If you allow school districts to refuse to allow the elections to be scheduled in school buildings, you are violating the law and betraying the trust of the citizens. Testing is important. Education is important. Showing our children by EXAMPLE is also important. The message you have sent is loud and clear: Elections don't really matter that much to the Texas Board of Education. Elections are an inconvenience that do not merit careful examination of dates on the calendar which ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL, POLITICAL APPOINTEE, CIVICS TEACHER, REGISTERED VOTER reserves for participating in elections.
The boneheads in your agency who scheduled TAKS testing on Election Day should be informed that it was a MISTAKE. Correct your mistake. Send a strong message to teachers, educators, pupils and your fellow citizens that your agency values our Democratic process enough to relinquish accommodate the elections on school premises March 4th. Make it a policy that all election days will be scheduled on your calendar before you begin filling in dates which are not SET BY LAW.
If you want to write them the email link to their website form is: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/tea/contact.html
I recommend that you also phone them. It is easier to ignore contact forms. When their switchboard also lights up the e-mail responses have greater impact.
The Texas Education Agency is located in the William Travis Building
1701 N. Congress Avenue
Austin, Texas, 78701
Those who oversee (and vote to fund) the TEA include:
Gov. Rick Perry - Tara Balleau (512) 799-9240 is the governor's point person on education.
In the Lt. Governor's office Andre Sheridan (512) 463-0108 is the Education Point Person.
Members of the Texas Senate Committee on Education include:
Chair of the Senate Education Committee: Senator Florence Shapiro (512) 463-0108 (972) 403-3404 - email form
Senator Royce West - (512) 463-0123 or (214) 467-0123
Senator West's education point person is Lajuana Barton lajuana_d.barton@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Kyle Janek - (512) 463-0117 (800) 445-2635
Senator Janek's point person on education is Casey Haney email: casey.haney@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Judith Zaffirini (512) 463-0121 (956) 722-2293
Her education point person is Warren von Eschenbach email: warren.voneschenbach@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Steve Ogden (512) 463-0105 His education point person is Patty Guerra
email: patty.guerra@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Leticia Van de Putte (512) 463-0126 (210) 733-6604
Her point person on education is Ida Garcia email: ida.garcis@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Tommy Williams (281) 364-9426 His point person on education is his chief of staff Janet Stieben email: janet.stieben@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Dan Patrick (713) 464-0282
I suspect that there may be attempts at TEA (if there is enough outcry)to blame some low level staffer. However, this date was set months ago. It went all the way up the supply chain and officials all the way up signed off on it. The responsiblity for ensuring that directives from the TEA complies with State Law (including State Election Code) rests with the top. The legal team should have reviewed this, conferred with the Attorney General and SOS and issued a directive to all school districts clarifying that if TAKS testing occurs on an election day, the school districts still have to accommodate the elections. The buck rests at the top. They are responsible for triggering law suits between county election officials and school districts throughout Texas, impacting every voter in Texas and sending a very bad message to our school children that elections really aren't that high a priority with this state's "Educators."
I think it is time to EDUCATE the educators.
REFERENCE: Texas Election Code 43.031
Education Code 39.023(c-3)
Thursday, January 10, 2008
TxDOT Critics Named to Sunset Review Commission-
By Martha Estes - Jan. 9, 2007
FYI: about the Commission
The Commission includes twelve members. The lieutenant governor and the speaker each appoint one public member and five members from their respective chambers. They also appoint alternating chairs and vice chairs for two-year terms. Legislative members serve four-year terms and public members serve two-year terms.
The Sunset process works by setting a date on which an agency will be abolished unless legislation is passed to continue its functions. This creates an opportunity for the Sunset Commission and the Legislature to study each agency closely and make fundamental changes to its mission or operations if necessary. This includes holding public hearings and issuing a final report of findings with recommendations as to whether the reviewed state agency's mandate will be renewed or expired.
Agencies are typically reviewed every twelve years and up to 30 agencies can go through the Sunset process each legislative session. Some of the agencies up for review this term are the Texas Department of Agriculture, the Texas Department of Insurance, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Office of State-Federal Relations, the Texas Department of Transportation and the Texas Youth Commission.
Also FYI: about the Members
On October 9, 2007 Speaker Tom Craddick (Midland) announced the appointments of #1 Rep. Linda Harper-Brown (Irving) and #2 Rep. Carl Isett (Lubbock) and the reappointment of #3 Ike Sugg of San Angelo, a public member of the Commission. Isett will serve as chair of the Commission.
#4 Rep. Lois Kolkhorst (Brenham), #5 Rep. Ruth McClendon Jones (San Antonio), and #6 Rep. Dan Flynn (Van) are members serving the last two years of their four-year terms (2009). Before Rep. Kolkhorst's prominent role in the opposition to the TTC footprint in the 2007 Legislative Session she was the expected Chair for the Sunset Commission.
Note: We need to keep in mind that Sen. Hegar carried the battle in the Senate for the Eminent Domain/Private Property Rights bill # 2006 to protect property owners in Condemnation. It had great support in both chambers and was vetoed by Perry.
Read more at Working for Accountable Government
TxDOT critics appointed to key state commission
By Will Lutz - The Dallas Blog - Tue, Jan 8, 2008
Rep. Linda Harper-Brown (Irving) and Rep. Carl Isett (Lubbock)Rep. Linda Harper-Brown (Irving) and Rep. Carl Isett (Lubbock by Will Lutz http://www.dallasblog.com/200801081001536/dallas-blog/txdot-critics-appointed-to-key-state-commission.html
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst today announced his appointments to the Sunset Advisory Commission, and his appointments could spell trouble for the current brass at the Texas Department of Transportation.
Dewhurst appointed the following people: #1 Sen. Glenn Hegar (R-Katy), #2 Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (D-McAllen), and #3 Michael Stevens as a public appointee. Dewhurst designated Hegar as the vice chairman of the commission -- the lead Senator on the Sunset Advisory Commission. The appointments are important because the Sunset Advisory Commission is scheduled to review the often controversial Texas Department of Transportation in 2009.
Hegar made stopping the corridor one of the key themes of his successful Senate race in 2006.
Stevens is known for his work on the Governor's Business Council and for chairing the council's Transportation Task Force. The Task Force released a report critical of Department of Transportation's estimated costs of building roads in metropolitan areas.
The Sunset Advisory Commission was originally created to determine if state agencies needed abolition or consolidation. But its mandate has since been expanded to examine how to improve the structure of state agencies. The commission's recommendations become drafted in bill form and then those bills are considered by the Legislature in the next legislative session.
Hegar, Stevens, and Hinojosa join #4 Sens. Bob Deuell (R-Greenville), #5 Kim Brimer (R-Arlington), and #6 Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls) who are serving the last two years of their four-year terms. Hegar and Hinojosa were appointed to four-year terms, and Stevens was appointed to a two-year term. They join six appointees of the House speaker on the commission."I truly appreciate the willingness of all three of these individuals to serve on this important commission," Dewhurst said. "I know each of them will provide knowledgeable and thought-provoking contributions as the Sunset Advisory Commission undertakes the review of some of our most important state agencies."
Read more in the Dallas Blog
FYI: about the Commission
The Commission includes twelve members. The lieutenant governor and the speaker each appoint one public member and five members from their respective chambers. They also appoint alternating chairs and vice chairs for two-year terms. Legislative members serve four-year terms and public members serve two-year terms.
The Sunset process works by setting a date on which an agency will be abolished unless legislation is passed to continue its functions. This creates an opportunity for the Sunset Commission and the Legislature to study each agency closely and make fundamental changes to its mission or operations if necessary. This includes holding public hearings and issuing a final report of findings with recommendations as to whether the reviewed state agency's mandate will be renewed or expired.
Agencies are typically reviewed every twelve years and up to 30 agencies can go through the Sunset process each legislative session. Some of the agencies up for review this term are the Texas Department of Agriculture, the Texas Department of Insurance, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Office of State-Federal Relations, the Texas Department of Transportation and the Texas Youth Commission.
Also FYI: about the Members
On October 9, 2007 Speaker Tom Craddick (Midland) announced the appointments of #1 Rep. Linda Harper-Brown (Irving) and #2 Rep. Carl Isett (Lubbock) and the reappointment of #3 Ike Sugg of San Angelo, a public member of the Commission. Isett will serve as chair of the Commission.
#4 Rep. Lois Kolkhorst (Brenham), #5 Rep. Ruth McClendon Jones (San Antonio), and #6 Rep. Dan Flynn (Van) are members serving the last two years of their four-year terms (2009). Before Rep. Kolkhorst's prominent role in the opposition to the TTC footprint in the 2007 Legislative Session she was the expected Chair for the Sunset Commission.
Note: We need to keep in mind that Sen. Hegar carried the battle in the Senate for the Eminent Domain/Private Property Rights bill # 2006 to protect property owners in Condemnation. It had great support in both chambers and was vetoed by Perry.
Read more at Working for Accountable Government
TxDOT critics appointed to key state commission
By Will Lutz - The Dallas Blog - Tue, Jan 8, 2008
Rep. Linda Harper-Brown (Irving) and Rep. Carl Isett (Lubbock)Rep. Linda Harper-Brown (Irving) and Rep. Carl Isett (Lubbock by Will Lutz http://www.dallasblog.com/200801081001536/dallas-blog/txdot-critics-appointed-to-key-state-commission.html
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst today announced his appointments to the Sunset Advisory Commission, and his appointments could spell trouble for the current brass at the Texas Department of Transportation.
Dewhurst appointed the following people: #1 Sen. Glenn Hegar (R-Katy), #2 Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (D-McAllen), and #3 Michael Stevens as a public appointee. Dewhurst designated Hegar as the vice chairman of the commission -- the lead Senator on the Sunset Advisory Commission. The appointments are important because the Sunset Advisory Commission is scheduled to review the often controversial Texas Department of Transportation in 2009.
Hegar made stopping the corridor one of the key themes of his successful Senate race in 2006.
Stevens is known for his work on the Governor's Business Council and for chairing the council's Transportation Task Force. The Task Force released a report critical of Department of Transportation's estimated costs of building roads in metropolitan areas.
The Sunset Advisory Commission was originally created to determine if state agencies needed abolition or consolidation. But its mandate has since been expanded to examine how to improve the structure of state agencies. The commission's recommendations become drafted in bill form and then those bills are considered by the Legislature in the next legislative session.
Hegar, Stevens, and Hinojosa join #4 Sens. Bob Deuell (R-Greenville), #5 Kim Brimer (R-Arlington), and #6 Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls) who are serving the last two years of their four-year terms. Hegar and Hinojosa were appointed to four-year terms, and Stevens was appointed to a two-year term. They join six appointees of the House speaker on the commission."I truly appreciate the willingness of all three of these individuals to serve on this important commission," Dewhurst said. "I know each of them will provide knowledgeable and thought-provoking contributions as the Sunset Advisory Commission undertakes the review of some of our most important state agencies."
Read more in the Dallas Blog
Ashcroft Deal Brings Scrutiny in Justice Dept.
By PHILIP SHENON - The New York Times - January 10, 2008
WASHINGTON — When the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey needed to find an outside lawyer to monitor a large corporation willing to settle criminal charges out of court last fall, he turned to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, his onetime boss. With no public notice and no bidding, the company awarded Mr. Ashcroft an 18-month contract worth $28 million to $52 million.
That contract, which Justice Department officials in Washington learned about only several weeks ago, has prompted an internal inquiry into the department’s procedures for selecting outside monitors to police settlements with large companies.
The contract between Mr. Ashcroft’s consulting firm, the Ashcroft Group, and Zimmer Holdings, a medical supply company in Indiana, has also drawn the attention of Congressional investigators.
The New Jersey prosecutor, United States Attorney Christopher J. Christie, directed similar monitoring contracts last year to two other former Justice Department colleagues from the Bush administration, as well as to a former Republican state attorney general in New Jersey.
Officials said that while there had been no accusations of wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Christie or Mr. Ashcroft, aides to Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey were concerned about the appearance of favoritism.
Mr. Mukasey, a former federal judge who was sworn in as attorney general in November, has vowed to remove political considerations from decision-making at the department in the wake of a series of scandals under his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales.
Mr. Ashcroft was awarded the contract last fall at the direction of Mr. Christie as part of his office’s settlement of criminal accusations against Zimmer Holdings and four smaller firms accused of paying kickbacks to doctors.
A spokesman for Mr. Ashcroft said that the Ashcroft Group had not lobbied for the contract but was pleased by the referral.
The disclosure of the monitoring agreement, in which Mr. Ashcroft’s fees are paid directly by Zimmer, prompted Democratic lawmakers from New Jersey to question if the contract was new evidence of political favoritism in the Bush administration’s long-embattled Justice Department.
Justice Department officials said the internal inquiry by the Criminal Division began several weeks ago with no public announcement.
Department officials said the review was expected to result this year in formal guidelines to prevent the appearance of conflicts in the choice of monitors to oversee out-of-court settlements reached between federal prosecutors and companies accused of wrongdoing.
In the Bush administration, federal prosecutors have increasingly relied on out-of-court settlements with large corporations in criminal investigations that in the past might have resulted in indictments and trials. The settlements often call for outside lawyers to be retained by the companies to monitor the agreements. The contracts call for the lawyers to monitor the company’s compliance with the settlements through financial audits and other types of internal investigations.
A new study by two Texas lawyers, Lawrence D. Finder and Ryan D. McConnell, found that the number of so-called deferred-prosecution or nonprosecution agreements between the department and large companies grew to 35 last year from 5 in 2003.
Often, the names of corporate monitors are not made public. The internal inquiry started after Zimmer Holdings revealed in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission in late October that it had hired Mr. Ashcroft’s consulting firm, based in Washington, to monitor its settlement of criminal charges based on accusations of kickbacks to doctors involving the company’s knee and hip implants.
The firm said Mr. Christie had directed it to hire Mr. Ashcroft. Mr. Christie has acknowledged that he chose Mr. Ashcroft for the assignment. The disclosures in Zimmer’s filings about Mr. Ashcroft were first reported several weeks ago by The Star-Ledger of Newark and other New Jersey news organizations.
Mr. Christie directed similar contracts in settlements with other medical-supply companies to two other former Justice Department colleagues — David N. Kelley, the former United States attorney in Manhattan, and Debra Wong Yang, his counterpart in Los Angeles — and to David Samson, the former Republican attorney general in New Jersey.
In a telephone interview on Wednesday, Mr. Christie said he chose Mr. Ashcroft and the others for the monitoring assignments because they had impeccable legal credentials and he knew and trusted them.
Mr. Christie has disputed accusations raised by Democratic lawmakers in New Jersey that it was a conflict of interest for him to direct large, no-bid contracts to former colleagues and friends, but he has referred those questions to the Justice Department in Washington.
Department officials said they had no formal comment but noted that the monitoring agreements were not given only to Republicans and that Mr. Christie’s recommendations of outside monitors in other large corporate investigations had been praised.
Although he was a prosecutor in the Bush administration, Mr. Kelley has registered as a Democrat in the past. Mr. Kelley, who has done legal work for The New York Times, did not respond to e-mail messages on Wednesday. Mr. Samson and Ms. Yang did not return phone calls.
The dollar value of the contracts obtained by Mr. Kelley, Ms. Yang and Mr. Samson is unclear, since the medical-supply companies they are monitoring have not revealed those details, suggesting that they are smaller than Mr. Ashcroft’s.
Under the settlements with the Justice Department, the companies negotiate the fees with the monitors themselves, a situation legal scholars say has the potential for abuse because companies might be overly generous to encourage leniency.
Department officials said that there were few internal guidelines for hiring independent monitors and that Mr. Christie was not required to seek approval from the Justice Department to name Mr. Ashcroft and the others and had not done so.
A spokesman for Mr. Ashcroft’s firm, Mark Corallo, said that Mr. Ashcroft was an obvious choice as a monitor.
“I know John Ashcroft, I know his capabilities,” Mr. Corallo said. “No matter what people think of his politics, he ran an unbelievably efficient operation at Justice as a manager. He understands the law. He understands how to manage an enormous organization.”
He said that Mr. Ashcroft knew nothing about the assignment until the possibility was raised by Mr. Christie, who was confirmed as United States attorney in 2002, shortly before Mr. Ashcroft was sworn in as attorney general. Mr. Christie had been a lawyer in private practice and a Republican fund-raiser in New Jersey.
Mr. Corallo said that Mr. Ashcroft’s firm had hired more than 30 employees and outside advisers, including accountants and lawyers, to oversee the monitoring contract and that Mr. Ashcroft had traveled to Indiana several times for the assignment.
In its filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Zimmer said it had agreed to pay the Ashcroft firm a monthly fee of $750,000, and to reimburse it for expenses that were expected to total $150,000 to $250,000 a month.
Read more in The New York Times
WASHINGTON — When the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey needed to find an outside lawyer to monitor a large corporation willing to settle criminal charges out of court last fall, he turned to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, his onetime boss. With no public notice and no bidding, the company awarded Mr. Ashcroft an 18-month contract worth $28 million to $52 million.
That contract, which Justice Department officials in Washington learned about only several weeks ago, has prompted an internal inquiry into the department’s procedures for selecting outside monitors to police settlements with large companies.
The contract between Mr. Ashcroft’s consulting firm, the Ashcroft Group, and Zimmer Holdings, a medical supply company in Indiana, has also drawn the attention of Congressional investigators.
The New Jersey prosecutor, United States Attorney Christopher J. Christie, directed similar monitoring contracts last year to two other former Justice Department colleagues from the Bush administration, as well as to a former Republican state attorney general in New Jersey.
Officials said that while there had been no accusations of wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Christie or Mr. Ashcroft, aides to Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey were concerned about the appearance of favoritism.
Mr. Mukasey, a former federal judge who was sworn in as attorney general in November, has vowed to remove political considerations from decision-making at the department in the wake of a series of scandals under his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales.
Mr. Ashcroft was awarded the contract last fall at the direction of Mr. Christie as part of his office’s settlement of criminal accusations against Zimmer Holdings and four smaller firms accused of paying kickbacks to doctors.
A spokesman for Mr. Ashcroft said that the Ashcroft Group had not lobbied for the contract but was pleased by the referral.
The disclosure of the monitoring agreement, in which Mr. Ashcroft’s fees are paid directly by Zimmer, prompted Democratic lawmakers from New Jersey to question if the contract was new evidence of political favoritism in the Bush administration’s long-embattled Justice Department.
Justice Department officials said the internal inquiry by the Criminal Division began several weeks ago with no public announcement.
Department officials said the review was expected to result this year in formal guidelines to prevent the appearance of conflicts in the choice of monitors to oversee out-of-court settlements reached between federal prosecutors and companies accused of wrongdoing.
In the Bush administration, federal prosecutors have increasingly relied on out-of-court settlements with large corporations in criminal investigations that in the past might have resulted in indictments and trials. The settlements often call for outside lawyers to be retained by the companies to monitor the agreements. The contracts call for the lawyers to monitor the company’s compliance with the settlements through financial audits and other types of internal investigations.
A new study by two Texas lawyers, Lawrence D. Finder and Ryan D. McConnell, found that the number of so-called deferred-prosecution or nonprosecution agreements between the department and large companies grew to 35 last year from 5 in 2003.
Often, the names of corporate monitors are not made public. The internal inquiry started after Zimmer Holdings revealed in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission in late October that it had hired Mr. Ashcroft’s consulting firm, based in Washington, to monitor its settlement of criminal charges based on accusations of kickbacks to doctors involving the company’s knee and hip implants.
The firm said Mr. Christie had directed it to hire Mr. Ashcroft. Mr. Christie has acknowledged that he chose Mr. Ashcroft for the assignment. The disclosures in Zimmer’s filings about Mr. Ashcroft were first reported several weeks ago by The Star-Ledger of Newark and other New Jersey news organizations.
Mr. Christie directed similar contracts in settlements with other medical-supply companies to two other former Justice Department colleagues — David N. Kelley, the former United States attorney in Manhattan, and Debra Wong Yang, his counterpart in Los Angeles — and to David Samson, the former Republican attorney general in New Jersey.
In a telephone interview on Wednesday, Mr. Christie said he chose Mr. Ashcroft and the others for the monitoring assignments because they had impeccable legal credentials and he knew and trusted them.
“It’s really important that the working relationship between this office and the monitors is very, very close,” he said. “I can’t tell you how much work we do with these monitors.” He said he had selected Mr. Ashcroft to work with Zimmer, the largest of five companies in the criminal investigation, because “I knew he was somebody who understands these issues and would be taken seriously by the company as an authority figure.”
Mr. Christie has disputed accusations raised by Democratic lawmakers in New Jersey that it was a conflict of interest for him to direct large, no-bid contracts to former colleagues and friends, but he has referred those questions to the Justice Department in Washington.
Department officials said they had no formal comment but noted that the monitoring agreements were not given only to Republicans and that Mr. Christie’s recommendations of outside monitors in other large corporate investigations had been praised.
Although he was a prosecutor in the Bush administration, Mr. Kelley has registered as a Democrat in the past. Mr. Kelley, who has done legal work for The New York Times, did not respond to e-mail messages on Wednesday. Mr. Samson and Ms. Yang did not return phone calls.
The dollar value of the contracts obtained by Mr. Kelley, Ms. Yang and Mr. Samson is unclear, since the medical-supply companies they are monitoring have not revealed those details, suggesting that they are smaller than Mr. Ashcroft’s.
Under the settlements with the Justice Department, the companies negotiate the fees with the monitors themselves, a situation legal scholars say has the potential for abuse because companies might be overly generous to encourage leniency.
Department officials said that there were few internal guidelines for hiring independent monitors and that Mr. Christie was not required to seek approval from the Justice Department to name Mr. Ashcroft and the others and had not done so.
A spokesman for Mr. Ashcroft’s firm, Mark Corallo, said that Mr. Ashcroft was an obvious choice as a monitor.
“I know John Ashcroft, I know his capabilities,” Mr. Corallo said. “No matter what people think of his politics, he ran an unbelievably efficient operation at Justice as a manager. He understands the law. He understands how to manage an enormous organization.”
He said that Mr. Ashcroft knew nothing about the assignment until the possibility was raised by Mr. Christie, who was confirmed as United States attorney in 2002, shortly before Mr. Ashcroft was sworn in as attorney general. Mr. Christie had been a lawyer in private practice and a Republican fund-raiser in New Jersey.
Mr. Corallo said that Mr. Ashcroft’s firm had hired more than 30 employees and outside advisers, including accountants and lawyers, to oversee the monitoring contract and that Mr. Ashcroft had traveled to Indiana several times for the assignment.
“It’s taken a large personal commitment from him,” Mr. Corallo said, adding, “In coming months, people will realize that Chris Christie did exactly the right thing in choosing these folks to be monitors.”
In its filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Zimmer said it had agreed to pay the Ashcroft firm a monthly fee of $750,000, and to reimburse it for expenses that were expected to total $150,000 to $250,000 a month.
Read more in The New York Times
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Companies compete for I-69 construction
Nueces County Record - Jan. 3, 2008
Companies with Texas, U.S. and international experience are competing to develop the Trans-Texas Corridor-69 - one of the state's priority transportation projects.
Two private sector groups submitted proposals and qualifications to compete for the development of TTC-69, a multi-use transportation system stretching from Northeast Texas to Mexico.
One proposal was submitted by Bluebonnet Infrastructure Investors, led by Cintra. Team members include Citigroup, Earth Tech, Blanton & Associates, Maunsell, Othon and W.W. Webber.
A proposal was also submitted by Texas-based Zachry American Infrastructure and ACS Infrastructure Development Inc. Team members include Steer Davies Gleave, UBS Securities, Dannenbaum Engineering, ACI Consulting, Sociedad Ibercia de Construcciones Electricas, Dragados, and William Brothers Construction.
These proposals include statements detailing the groups experience in developing and financing transportation projects similar to TTC-69. Also included are conceptual proposals describing how the team would finance, design, construct, operate and maintain TTC-69.
The next step is for TxDOT to complete an initial review of the proposals, which could be completed next month. Teams with experience, qualifications and innovative engineering will be placed on a short list of potential strategic partners for TTC-69.
Once this is completed, approval by the Texas Transportation Commission is needed to continue with the competitive selection process. If approved, TxDOT will request detailed proposals from the short list of potential strategic partners. A selection of a strategic partner could be made by the commission by late 2007.
With no funding set aside for construction, a public-private partnership would allow development of the entire 600-mile multi-billion dollar project from Northeast Texas to Mexico to be accelerated. Even with private sector resources to fund the project, state transportation officials stress TTC-69 will remain a state-owned project.
On a parallel yet independent track, work continues on the initial environmental study that would narrow the current study area to approximately four miles wide. Subsequent studies will be needed to determine a final route for the project.
Interstate 69 is being developed under the Trans-Texas Corridor master plan. If environmentally approved, the project would be developed as needed and as private sector resources are available.
Companies with Texas, U.S. and international experience are competing to develop the Trans-Texas Corridor-69 - one of the state's priority transportation projects.
Two private sector groups submitted proposals and qualifications to compete for the development of TTC-69, a multi-use transportation system stretching from Northeast Texas to Mexico.
"Inviting the private sector to invest in our transportation system is one of our strategies to meet the growing transportation needs of Texas," said Michael W. Behrens, TxDOT executive director. "We are focused on these five goals: reducing congestion, enhancing safety, expanding economic opportunity, improving air quality, and increasing the value of transportation assets."
One proposal was submitted by Bluebonnet Infrastructure Investors, led by Cintra. Team members include Citigroup, Earth Tech, Blanton & Associates, Maunsell, Othon and W.W. Webber.
A proposal was also submitted by Texas-based Zachry American Infrastructure and ACS Infrastructure Development Inc. Team members include Steer Davies Gleave, UBS Securities, Dannenbaum Engineering, ACI Consulting, Sociedad Ibercia de Construcciones Electricas, Dragados, and William Brothers Construction.
These proposals include statements detailing the groups experience in developing and financing transportation projects similar to TTC-69. Also included are conceptual proposals describing how the team would finance, design, construct, operate and maintain TTC-69.
The next step is for TxDOT to complete an initial review of the proposals, which could be completed next month. Teams with experience, qualifications and innovative engineering will be placed on a short list of potential strategic partners for TTC-69.
Once this is completed, approval by the Texas Transportation Commission is needed to continue with the competitive selection process. If approved, TxDOT will request detailed proposals from the short list of potential strategic partners. A selection of a strategic partner could be made by the commission by late 2007.
With no funding set aside for construction, a public-private partnership would allow development of the entire 600-mile multi-billion dollar project from Northeast Texas to Mexico to be accelerated. Even with private sector resources to fund the project, state transportation officials stress TTC-69 will remain a state-owned project.
On a parallel yet independent track, work continues on the initial environmental study that would narrow the current study area to approximately four miles wide. Subsequent studies will be needed to determine a final route for the project.
Interstate 69 is being developed under the Trans-Texas Corridor master plan. If environmentally approved, the project would be developed as needed and as private sector resources are available.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Texas Transportation Commission Chairman Williamson dies
By Ben Wear - Austin American Statesman - Sunday, December 30, 2007
Ric Williamson, the Texas Transportation Commission chairman and a take-no-prisoners advocate for his friend Rick Perry’s toll road policy, has died.
Williamson, 55, who had been on the commission since 2001 and its chairman since January 2004, died of a heart attack, said state Sen. Mike Krusee, chairman of the House Transportation Committee. It was not clear today if Williamson died late Saturday night or early Sunday.
Williamson, a Weatherford resident, had served in the Texas House for 14 years, leaving in 1999. Williamson dominated discussion of Texas transportation policy for most of this decade, holding forth at commission meetings in a curiously ornate but still straight-forward style that sometimes infuriated opponents of the toll road policy. Williamson, in particular, was four-square behind granting private companies long-term leases to finance, build and operate publicly owned toll roads, an approach that he said would raise billions for other roads but that others feared gave away too much control of public assets.
Texas Monthly in a June article had called him “the most hated person in Texas, public enemy number one to a million or more people.” In that same article, Williamson told writer Paul Burka, “I’ve had two heart attacks, and I’m trying to avoid the third one, which the doctors tell me will be fatal.”People could question Williamson’s policy stands and his approach - and plenty of Texas legislators did just that over the past year - but no one could question the horsepower of the intellect behind those policies.
Transportation Department executive director Amadeo Saenz issued this statement this afternoon:
Read more
Ric Williamson, the Texas Transportation Commission chairman and a take-no-prisoners advocate for his friend Rick Perry’s toll road policy, has died.
Williamson, 55, who had been on the commission since 2001 and its chairman since January 2004, died of a heart attack, said state Sen. Mike Krusee, chairman of the House Transportation Committee. It was not clear today if Williamson died late Saturday night or early Sunday.
Williamson, a Weatherford resident, had served in the Texas House for 14 years, leaving in 1999. Williamson dominated discussion of Texas transportation policy for most of this decade, holding forth at commission meetings in a curiously ornate but still straight-forward style that sometimes infuriated opponents of the toll road policy. Williamson, in particular, was four-square behind granting private companies long-term leases to finance, build and operate publicly owned toll roads, an approach that he said would raise billions for other roads but that others feared gave away too much control of public assets.
Texas Monthly in a June article had called him “the most hated person in Texas, public enemy number one to a million or more people.” In that same article, Williamson told writer Paul Burka, “I’ve had two heart attacks, and I’m trying to avoid the third one, which the doctors tell me will be fatal.”People could question Williamson’s policy stands and his approach - and plenty of Texas legislators did just that over the past year - but no one could question the horsepower of the intellect behind those policies.
“Ric was the smartest and most far-sighted person I’d ever seen in public life,” said Krusee. “I learned so much whenever I was around Ric, and I don’t just mean transportation policy.”
Transportation Department executive director Amadeo Saenz issued this statement this afternoon:
“Ric Williamson was a visionary. As a member and chairman of the Texas Transportation Commission, he brought passion and focus to meeting many of the challenges facing Texas today and for generations to come. The entire TxDOT family will miss his dedication and his leadership. At this time, our thoughts are with his wife, children and grandchildren.”
Read more
Sunday, December 23, 2007
FOCUS ON ...City in Transition
Reprinted from Fort Worth Star Telegram Letters to the Editor - Dec. 15, 2007
Mansfield is a vibrant, growing city. The problem is that the good old boys haven’t grown with the city.
Mansfield elected a mayor to lead the city during its transition from a small 20th-century town to a 21st-century city. The challenge comes because of the City Council’s refusal to acknowledge the dynamics involved in the transformation.
The council rejected the elected mayor because he broke the “code” and isn’t a member of the good-old-boy network, resulting in a vendetta against him.
When a former council member spoke out against the mayor at the council’s open-microphone session, he was allotted extra time to do so. Has the council now done away with the five-minute limit on speakers? Or does it give special privileges to the good old boys?
The city manager says he can’t hire people because of unbudgeted legal costs. Yet the city manager can’t itemize legal costs. How can the mayor be responsible for unbudgeted legal expenses if the city manager can’t specify such?
The proposed $45 million public events center? Exposure of the consulting contract and cost estimates represented nothing illegal, said the city attorney. Where are all those who opposed the Big League Dreams project because of back-room decisions?
Barton Scott is a leader — a leader taking a 20th-century small town into the future. The future is a city in the 21st century.
Residents of Mansfield voted for new leadership. Now’s the time for residents to support that decision.
— Brent Henrich, Mansfield
Mansfield is a vibrant, growing city. The problem is that the good old boys haven’t grown with the city.
Mansfield elected a mayor to lead the city during its transition from a small 20th-century town to a 21st-century city. The challenge comes because of the City Council’s refusal to acknowledge the dynamics involved in the transformation.
The council rejected the elected mayor because he broke the “code” and isn’t a member of the good-old-boy network, resulting in a vendetta against him.
When a former council member spoke out against the mayor at the council’s open-microphone session, he was allotted extra time to do so. Has the council now done away with the five-minute limit on speakers? Or does it give special privileges to the good old boys?
The city manager says he can’t hire people because of unbudgeted legal costs. Yet the city manager can’t itemize legal costs. How can the mayor be responsible for unbudgeted legal expenses if the city manager can’t specify such?
The proposed $45 million public events center? Exposure of the consulting contract and cost estimates represented nothing illegal, said the city attorney. Where are all those who opposed the Big League Dreams project because of back-room decisions?
Barton Scott is a leader — a leader taking a 20th-century small town into the future. The future is a city in the 21st century.
Residents of Mansfield voted for new leadership. Now’s the time for residents to support that decision.
— Brent Henrich, Mansfield
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
TxDOT attorney admits ad campaign is ongoing
By Terri Hall - T.U.R.F. - Dec. 20, 2007
Austin, TX, December 20, 2007 – Today in Travis County District Court, Judge Orlinda Naranjo did not sustain TxDOT’s objection to the requested material’s merits to the case, but ruled TURF’s document request was worded too broadly and needs to be resubmitted as part of the discovery phase TURF's lawsuit against TxDOT for illegal lobbying and use of taxpayer money to sell the public on toll roads.
“After tweaking the wording of the request a bit, we’ll be back in business. The Judge clearly agreed we have a right to get access to this information. She wanted to be sure we weren’t buried in piles of irrelevant documents,” notes a positive Terri Hall, Founder of TURF.
The court also granted TURF another 30 days to give them time to reword the document request and to depose witnesses based on the information discovered.
The most significant admission from the State was that the Keep Texas Moving ad campaign does have multiple phases (as the documents we presented to the court show that the State tried to deny), and that TxDOT is obligated to hand over any new documents related to any current lobbying or that relate to spending public money to promote toll roads.
“That’s HUGE! We went from a sworn affidavit saying the ad campaign is over therefore the case is moot, to an admission the campaign has multiple phases and is ongoing. We believe TxDOT is in the midst of rolling out Phase II or III of the Keep Texas Moving campaign since the public hearings for Trans Texas Corridor (TTC) 69 project start in February and are the target for the next phase of the campaign. The State admitted it MUST turn over any current information related to these allegations. It keeps the case alive and means we have a real shot at stopping the use of taxpayer money to promote the TTC!” Hall predicts.
The Attorney General Counsel representing TxDOT, Kristina Silcocks, tried to attack the merits of the case once again stating there is no ongoing lobbying of Congress and argued the Forward Momentum report sent to Congress in January that asks for legislation to allow them to buy back and toll existing interstates is in the past and cannot be explored in this lawsuit.
“Once again, TxDOT is wrong. An appropriations bill before the President RIGHT NOW includes an amendment PROHIBITING TxDOT from buying back interstates. There is CURRENT legislation pending as a direct result of TxDOT’s lobbying (in this case, as a backlash to TxDOT’s lobbying efforts). So for the State to tell the court TxDOT isn’t currently engaged in efforts to effect the outcome of legislation or support for toll roads, they’re quite mistaken,” notes Hall.
This lawsuit is brought pursuant to § 37, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. TxDOT’s expenditure of public funds for the Keep Texas Moving campaign is illegal, and an injunction prohibiting any further illegal expenditures in this regard.
TxDOT has violated § 556.004 of the Texas Government Code by directing the expenditure of public funds for political advocacy in support of toll roads and the Trans Texas Corridor, and have directly lobbied the United States Congress in favor of additional toll road programs as evidenced in its report, Forward Momentum as well as the Texas Legislature when it tried to defeat HB 1892, a private equity toll moratorium bill.
October 18, 2007, Judge Naranjo granted TURF a 90 day continuance and allowed them to move to discovery and take depositions. On Monday, September 24, Judge Naranjo did not grant a temporary restraining order (TRO). TxDOT unearthed a law that says they can advertise toll roads (Sec 228.004 of Transportation Code) and the citizens invoked another that says they can’t (Chapter 556, Texas Government Code). The burden to obtain a TRO is higher than for an injunction.
“TxDOT is waging a one-sided political ad campaign designed to sway public opinion in favor of the policy that puts money in TxDOT’s own coffers. School Boards cannot lobby in favor of their own bond elections, and yet TxDOT cites its own special law to line their own pockets at taxpayers’ expense,” says Terri Hall, Founder/Director of TURF.
Hall also notes that TxDOT’s campaign goes beyond mere advertising, “It’s propaganda and in some cases, the ads blatantly lie to the public! In one radio ad (scroll down to radio ad “continuing maintenance”), it claims it’s not signing contracts with non-compete agreements in them and yet last March TxDOT inked a deal with Cintra-Zachry for SH 130 that had a non-compete clause (which either prohibits or financially punishes the State for building competing infrastructure with a toll road).”
On August 22, 2007, TURF filed a formal complaint with Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle to investigate TxDOT’s illegal lobbying and asked him to prosecute TxDOT for criminal wrongdoing. See the formal complaint . The petition seeks immediate injunctive relief in a civil proceeding.
Read about TURF’s victory in court October 18 and
read TURF’s amended petition and supplemental affidavits go here: (Scroll to the bottom for links to the petition and affidavits)
Austin, TX, December 20, 2007 – Today in Travis County District Court, Judge Orlinda Naranjo did not sustain TxDOT’s objection to the requested material’s merits to the case, but ruled TURF’s document request was worded too broadly and needs to be resubmitted as part of the discovery phase TURF's lawsuit against TxDOT for illegal lobbying and use of taxpayer money to sell the public on toll roads.
“After tweaking the wording of the request a bit, we’ll be back in business. The Judge clearly agreed we have a right to get access to this information. She wanted to be sure we weren’t buried in piles of irrelevant documents,” notes a positive Terri Hall, Founder of TURF.
The court also granted TURF another 30 days to give them time to reword the document request and to depose witnesses based on the information discovered.
The most significant admission from the State was that the Keep Texas Moving ad campaign does have multiple phases (as the documents we presented to the court show that the State tried to deny), and that TxDOT is obligated to hand over any new documents related to any current lobbying or that relate to spending public money to promote toll roads.
“That’s HUGE! We went from a sworn affidavit saying the ad campaign is over therefore the case is moot, to an admission the campaign has multiple phases and is ongoing. We believe TxDOT is in the midst of rolling out Phase II or III of the Keep Texas Moving campaign since the public hearings for Trans Texas Corridor (TTC) 69 project start in February and are the target for the next phase of the campaign. The State admitted it MUST turn over any current information related to these allegations. It keeps the case alive and means we have a real shot at stopping the use of taxpayer money to promote the TTC!” Hall predicts.
The Attorney General Counsel representing TxDOT, Kristina Silcocks, tried to attack the merits of the case once again stating there is no ongoing lobbying of Congress and argued the Forward Momentum report sent to Congress in January that asks for legislation to allow them to buy back and toll existing interstates is in the past and cannot be explored in this lawsuit.
“Once again, TxDOT is wrong. An appropriations bill before the President RIGHT NOW includes an amendment PROHIBITING TxDOT from buying back interstates. There is CURRENT legislation pending as a direct result of TxDOT’s lobbying (in this case, as a backlash to TxDOT’s lobbying efforts). So for the State to tell the court TxDOT isn’t currently engaged in efforts to effect the outcome of legislation or support for toll roads, they’re quite mistaken,” notes Hall.
This lawsuit is brought pursuant to § 37, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. TxDOT’s expenditure of public funds for the Keep Texas Moving campaign is illegal, and an injunction prohibiting any further illegal expenditures in this regard.
TxDOT has violated § 556.004 of the Texas Government Code by directing the expenditure of public funds for political advocacy in support of toll roads and the Trans Texas Corridor, and have directly lobbied the United States Congress in favor of additional toll road programs as evidenced in its report, Forward Momentum as well as the Texas Legislature when it tried to defeat HB 1892, a private equity toll moratorium bill.
October 18, 2007, Judge Naranjo granted TURF a 90 day continuance and allowed them to move to discovery and take depositions. On Monday, September 24, Judge Naranjo did not grant a temporary restraining order (TRO). TxDOT unearthed a law that says they can advertise toll roads (Sec 228.004 of Transportation Code) and the citizens invoked another that says they can’t (Chapter 556, Texas Government Code). The burden to obtain a TRO is higher than for an injunction.
“TxDOT is waging a one-sided political ad campaign designed to sway public opinion in favor of the policy that puts money in TxDOT’s own coffers. School Boards cannot lobby in favor of their own bond elections, and yet TxDOT cites its own special law to line their own pockets at taxpayers’ expense,” says Terri Hall, Founder/Director of TURF.
Hall also notes that TxDOT’s campaign goes beyond mere advertising, “It’s propaganda and in some cases, the ads blatantly lie to the public! In one radio ad (scroll down to radio ad “continuing maintenance”), it claims it’s not signing contracts with non-compete agreements in them and yet last March TxDOT inked a deal with Cintra-Zachry for SH 130 that had a non-compete clause (which either prohibits or financially punishes the State for building competing infrastructure with a toll road).”
On August 22, 2007, TURF filed a formal complaint with Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle to investigate TxDOT’s illegal lobbying and asked him to prosecute TxDOT for criminal wrongdoing. See the formal complaint . The petition seeks immediate injunctive relief in a civil proceeding.
Read about TURF’s victory in court October 18 and
read TURF’s amended petition and supplemental affidavits go here: (Scroll to the bottom for links to the petition and affidavits)
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Highland Village residents sue to block highway
By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER and JAY PARSONS - The Dallas Morning News - Tuesday, December 11, 2007
A citizens' group in Highland Village has filed suit in federal court seeking to block the extension of FM2499, a four-lane state highway that they say threatens the area's quality of life.
The highway, which could be built out to six lanes in the future, has been planned in the area for years, but that hasn't stopped the development of subdivisions, many of which find themselves just yards from the proposed route for the highway.
Residents have fought the route, however, saying it comes too close to homes and will destroy the area's rural charm.
Highland Village is a quiet neighbor-oriented community that will suffer from the amplified noise levels," stated a news release announcing the suit filed by residents calling themselves the Highland Village Parents Group. "The wildlife and people utilizing the federal park and wetlands will also suffer. The Defendants recognize the noise impacts, but completely fail to mitigate for these impacts by not including sound barriers in the design."
The suit claims that the environmental review process was short-circuited when state and federal officials agreed to permit a less-extensive review.
"This lawsuit was filed to challenge the arbitrary and capricious and illegal actions by a group of governmental agencies that had already made their minds up about what they were going to do and then simply did it, running roughshod over the procedural requirements" of federal law, the suit reads.
The suit was filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Sherman.
A spokesman for the Texas Transportation Commission, which was among the agencies listed as defendants, could not be reached Tuesday afternoon.
Last month, Michael Morris, the transportation director for the North Central Texas Council of Governments, sent a letter to Highland Village residents opposed to the highway. Mr. Morris wrote that planning on the highway began 22 years ago, and that the property for the road was purchased by Denton County in the early 1990s. He said no homes were located within 2,000 feet of the property at that time.
Residents who oppose the road, however, have maintained that developers failed to adequately warn buyers that the road would come so close to homes that have subsequently been built.
The Highland Village Parents Group is the latest of several coalitions opposing the FM2499 extension, all insisting the road would cause pollution and harm the quality of life. None have been able to sway Highland Village city leaders from supporting the project.
In 2003 a group of Highland Village residents formed the Stop 2499 Coalition. That summer, about 1,000 people attended a public hearing on the road project, and hundreds more were turned away at the door. Most of those in attendance opposed the road expansion.
Stop 2499 fizzled out after the heated May 2004 election in which the coalition's candidates lost bids for seats on the Highland Village City Council.
Planning for the road has continued. Construction could start next year.
Highland Village resident Susie Venable said she almost gave up after the 2004 election. But then she decided to walk through and take pictures from the yards bordering the future roadway. The distances were too close to be safe, she said. "I went out there and I thought, 'Oh, my God, this is criminal,'." said Ms. Venable, one of the leaders of the Highland Village Parents Group.
Ms. Venable said several members of the group have children with respiratory problems. The roadway would put them at risk, she said.
The group is hoping for a court injunction that would force the government to do a more thorough environmental impact assessment. The group made that same request to several agencies and state officials without success before filing suit. "It's wrong," Ms. Venable said. "It's a mistake. You're not coming through our backyard. You're not going to destroy the lifestyle in this beautiful lakeside community."
Ms. Venable said no community should be treated the way Highland Village has been.
On Tuesday, Stop 2499 founder Paul LeBon called the road "a done deal."
"These people are beating a dead horse," said Mr. LeBon, who is not connected with the group. "Every 't' has been crossed and i' dotted, all the way up to the federal."
Mr. LeBon said the city's growing retail hub at the FM2499 and FM 407 intersection depends on the road's extension. That view puts him in the same camp as Highland Village Mayor Dianne Costa, who Mr. LeBon worked unsuccessfully to remove from office in 2004.
Ms. Costa said the city's air quality would improve when the road extends across the lake. The city expects traffic gridlock at the FM2499 and FM407 intersection to loosen with FM2499's extension.
"If it's delayed, it's not only going to negatively affect the development out there, it will also affect the congestion and air quality and everything else," Ms. Costa said. "The key goal in air quality is you keep things moving - not deadlock, standing still."
Read Document of lawsuit
Read letter from Mike Morris of RTC NCTCOG
A citizens' group in Highland Village has filed suit in federal court seeking to block the extension of FM2499, a four-lane state highway that they say threatens the area's quality of life.
The highway, which could be built out to six lanes in the future, has been planned in the area for years, but that hasn't stopped the development of subdivisions, many of which find themselves just yards from the proposed route for the highway.
Residents have fought the route, however, saying it comes too close to homes and will destroy the area's rural charm.
Highland Village is a quiet neighbor-oriented community that will suffer from the amplified noise levels," stated a news release announcing the suit filed by residents calling themselves the Highland Village Parents Group. "The wildlife and people utilizing the federal park and wetlands will also suffer. The Defendants recognize the noise impacts, but completely fail to mitigate for these impacts by not including sound barriers in the design."
The suit claims that the environmental review process was short-circuited when state and federal officials agreed to permit a less-extensive review.
"This lawsuit was filed to challenge the arbitrary and capricious and illegal actions by a group of governmental agencies that had already made their minds up about what they were going to do and then simply did it, running roughshod over the procedural requirements" of federal law, the suit reads.
The suit was filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Sherman.
A spokesman for the Texas Transportation Commission, which was among the agencies listed as defendants, could not be reached Tuesday afternoon.
Last month, Michael Morris, the transportation director for the North Central Texas Council of Governments, sent a letter to Highland Village residents opposed to the highway. Mr. Morris wrote that planning on the highway began 22 years ago, and that the property for the road was purchased by Denton County in the early 1990s. He said no homes were located within 2,000 feet of the property at that time.
Residents who oppose the road, however, have maintained that developers failed to adequately warn buyers that the road would come so close to homes that have subsequently been built.
The Highland Village Parents Group is the latest of several coalitions opposing the FM2499 extension, all insisting the road would cause pollution and harm the quality of life. None have been able to sway Highland Village city leaders from supporting the project.
In 2003 a group of Highland Village residents formed the Stop 2499 Coalition. That summer, about 1,000 people attended a public hearing on the road project, and hundreds more were turned away at the door. Most of those in attendance opposed the road expansion.
Stop 2499 fizzled out after the heated May 2004 election in which the coalition's candidates lost bids for seats on the Highland Village City Council.
Planning for the road has continued. Construction could start next year.
Highland Village resident Susie Venable said she almost gave up after the 2004 election. But then she decided to walk through and take pictures from the yards bordering the future roadway. The distances were too close to be safe, she said. "I went out there and I thought, 'Oh, my God, this is criminal,'." said Ms. Venable, one of the leaders of the Highland Village Parents Group.
Ms. Venable said several members of the group have children with respiratory problems. The roadway would put them at risk, she said.
The group is hoping for a court injunction that would force the government to do a more thorough environmental impact assessment. The group made that same request to several agencies and state officials without success before filing suit. "It's wrong," Ms. Venable said. "It's a mistake. You're not coming through our backyard. You're not going to destroy the lifestyle in this beautiful lakeside community."
Ms. Venable said no community should be treated the way Highland Village has been.
On Tuesday, Stop 2499 founder Paul LeBon called the road "a done deal."
"These people are beating a dead horse," said Mr. LeBon, who is not connected with the group. "Every 't' has been crossed and i' dotted, all the way up to the federal."
Mr. LeBon said the city's growing retail hub at the FM2499 and FM 407 intersection depends on the road's extension. That view puts him in the same camp as Highland Village Mayor Dianne Costa, who Mr. LeBon worked unsuccessfully to remove from office in 2004.
Ms. Costa said the city's air quality would improve when the road extends across the lake. The city expects traffic gridlock at the FM2499 and FM407 intersection to loosen with FM2499's extension.
"If it's delayed, it's not only going to negatively affect the development out there, it will also affect the congestion and air quality and everything else," Ms. Costa said. "The key goal in air quality is you keep things moving - not deadlock, standing still."
Read Document of lawsuit
Read letter from Mike Morris of RTC NCTCOG
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Parent Group sues Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation and TX Transportation Commission
By HVPG - Higland Village, TX - Dec. 11, 2007
The Highland Village Parents Group (HVPG) filed a lawsuit Monday, Dec. 10, to prevent the construction of FM 2499 Section 4 until it satisfies the standards required by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Planned as a new construction four lane state highway to ultimately be build-out to six lanes, Section 4 of FM 2499 cuts.directly through residential sub-divisions and federal parklands and is planned to cross three tribitutaries which feed into Lake Lewisville (drinking water source of Dallas and Denton Counties). Only an Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the project, which does not fully consider the tremendous negative impacts on human health, and is incomplete in many other areas as well.
Faith Chatham, co-founder of DFW Regional Concerned citizens and editor of About Air and Water states: "TxDOT and the EPA have fast tracked environmental studies on this road at the request of a handful of local Denton county officials who ignored the concerns of residents. In 2003 when public hearings were held on this road, the fire marshal closed the building because more citizens showed up to protest than the hall could accommodate. When the meeting was rescheduled, about 1000 citizens registered to testify. Yet their outcry was not given serious weight by elected officials and transportation bureaucrats. I am especially concerned that the route selected is the most costly to construct and the route which crosses the most vulnerable water / wetlands. The section of Lake Lewisville which has registered the highest concentrations of toxic gasoline additives is where TxDOT proposes building three bridges to cross tribitaries of Lake Lewisville. Currently there is no technology which will remove this additive from drinking water and Denton and Dallas County residents get their drinking water from Lake Lewisville. I am thankful that the Highland Village Parents Group is continues to press for full environmental impact studies. This route is controversial yet TxDOT has refused to classify it controversial in order to fast track construction."
The suit alleges that the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation and the Texas Transportation Commission (Defendants) were deficient in giving environmental clearance to the project, and in their failure to conduct a more intensive environmental study based on the significant health, air and noise pollution and safety impacts to residents, and in using federal recreational parklands, wildlife management areas and wetlands. Additionally, the Defendants provided clearance while ignoring the opposition of thousands of citizens of Highland Village and surrounding communities (97% of written comments opposed the project at the public hearings).
Recent studies report the significant negative impacts caused by increased ambient air pollution from vehicular emissions to the health of people living in close proximity to a major road like this one. These impacts include increased incidents of lung and heart disease. Children, in particular, are at great risk of suffering substantial, irreversible, long-term lung damage by living and playing in such close proximity (see recent 13 year USC School of Medicine Study published in January 2007 describing permanent lung damage to children growing up within 1500 feet of a major road).
Increased noise levels will exceed federal standards in many areas. Highland Village is a quiet neighbor-oriented community that will suffer from the amplified noise levels. The wildlife and people utilizing the federal park and wetlands will also suffer. The Defendants recognize the noise impacts, but completely fail to mitigate for these impacts by not including sound barriers in the design.
Families living in homes, many within 25 feet of the Right-of-Way, and residents utilizing public parks and the community pool directly abutting the right-of-way, will be placed in a very dangerous condition. Some portions of the highway will be elevated up to 15 feet above grade, raising significant safety concerns about accidents causing vehicles to leave the roadway and hazardous material spills into homes, yards and parks. Recent tanker truck accidents on I-35 and in Everett, Mass. are examples of the serious threat to these families and homes.
The route of the highway will cross sensitive emergent wetlands, recreational parklands and wildlife management areas. The Defendants failure to thoroughly consider alternative routes is clearly in violation of federal law which specifies that if feasible alternate paths for a highway exist, they must be used (there were ten original alternatives).
The Defendants fail to follow their own guidelines by refusing to carry out an EIS for the highway project. According to the Defendants’ own published rules and policies, highways such as FM 2499, Section 4 typically require an EIS, especially when there is significant controversy and federal parklands are involved.
The unique quality of life present in Highland Village, the primary reason people move to Highland Village, will be devastated by the construction of FM 2499, Section 4.
Highland Village Parents Group can be reached at hvparentgroup@gmail.com, or by phoning Roxane Thomas at 817-832-3319.
The Highland Village Parents Group (HVPG) filed a lawsuit Monday, Dec. 10, to prevent the construction of FM 2499 Section 4 until it satisfies the standards required by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Planned as a new construction four lane state highway to ultimately be build-out to six lanes, Section 4 of FM 2499 cuts.directly through residential sub-divisions and federal parklands and is planned to cross three tribitutaries which feed into Lake Lewisville (drinking water source of Dallas and Denton Counties). Only an Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the project, which does not fully consider the tremendous negative impacts on human health, and is incomplete in many other areas as well.
Faith Chatham, co-founder of DFW Regional Concerned citizens and editor of About Air and Water states: "TxDOT and the EPA have fast tracked environmental studies on this road at the request of a handful of local Denton county officials who ignored the concerns of residents. In 2003 when public hearings were held on this road, the fire marshal closed the building because more citizens showed up to protest than the hall could accommodate. When the meeting was rescheduled, about 1000 citizens registered to testify. Yet their outcry was not given serious weight by elected officials and transportation bureaucrats. I am especially concerned that the route selected is the most costly to construct and the route which crosses the most vulnerable water / wetlands. The section of Lake Lewisville which has registered the highest concentrations of toxic gasoline additives is where TxDOT proposes building three bridges to cross tribitaries of Lake Lewisville. Currently there is no technology which will remove this additive from drinking water and Denton and Dallas County residents get their drinking water from Lake Lewisville. I am thankful that the Highland Village Parents Group is continues to press for full environmental impact studies. This route is controversial yet TxDOT has refused to classify it controversial in order to fast track construction."
The suit alleges that the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation and the Texas Transportation Commission (Defendants) were deficient in giving environmental clearance to the project, and in their failure to conduct a more intensive environmental study based on the significant health, air and noise pollution and safety impacts to residents, and in using federal recreational parklands, wildlife management areas and wetlands. Additionally, the Defendants provided clearance while ignoring the opposition of thousands of citizens of Highland Village and surrounding communities (97% of written comments opposed the project at the public hearings).
Recent studies report the significant negative impacts caused by increased ambient air pollution from vehicular emissions to the health of people living in close proximity to a major road like this one. These impacts include increased incidents of lung and heart disease. Children, in particular, are at great risk of suffering substantial, irreversible, long-term lung damage by living and playing in such close proximity (see recent 13 year USC School of Medicine Study published in January 2007 describing permanent lung damage to children growing up within 1500 feet of a major road).
Increased noise levels will exceed federal standards in many areas. Highland Village is a quiet neighbor-oriented community that will suffer from the amplified noise levels. The wildlife and people utilizing the federal park and wetlands will also suffer. The Defendants recognize the noise impacts, but completely fail to mitigate for these impacts by not including sound barriers in the design.
Families living in homes, many within 25 feet of the Right-of-Way, and residents utilizing public parks and the community pool directly abutting the right-of-way, will be placed in a very dangerous condition. Some portions of the highway will be elevated up to 15 feet above grade, raising significant safety concerns about accidents causing vehicles to leave the roadway and hazardous material spills into homes, yards and parks. Recent tanker truck accidents on I-35 and in Everett, Mass. are examples of the serious threat to these families and homes.
The route of the highway will cross sensitive emergent wetlands, recreational parklands and wildlife management areas. The Defendants failure to thoroughly consider alternative routes is clearly in violation of federal law which specifies that if feasible alternate paths for a highway exist, they must be used (there were ten original alternatives).
The Defendants fail to follow their own guidelines by refusing to carry out an EIS for the highway project. According to the Defendants’ own published rules and policies, highways such as FM 2499, Section 4 typically require an EIS, especially when there is significant controversy and federal parklands are involved.
The unique quality of life present in Highland Village, the primary reason people move to Highland Village, will be devastated by the construction of FM 2499, Section 4.
Highland Village Parents Group can be reached at hvparentgroup@gmail.com, or by phoning Roxane Thomas at 817-832-3319.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
